|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-13-06 | | RookFile: Joshka, no of course I'm not 2500 but I can play with any 2200 strength player. In some positions the computer just gets it wrong. |
|
| Jul-13-06 | | Hesam7: This is not the last time that Kasparov agrees to draw in a superior position. Here is another example 5 years later against Anand: Kasparov vs Anand, 1995. |
|
| Jul-13-06 | | Hesam7: Also Kasparov offered a draw in a "winning" position in the last game of this very match: Kasparov vs Karpov, 1990. |
|
| Jul-14-06 | | alicefujimori: <RookFile><you spent the whole day the other day disproving my 'point' that the 1978 Karpov vs. Korchnoi match was unfair>Talking rubbish again hey? Everyone that was reading that page knew that you were complaining that Korchnoi played the 1978 match with a gun pointed at his son's head. How much more do you want to deny it? <Hesam7><Kasparov vs Karpov, 1990; Yes, but that's could be understood because it was the last game of the match and there was really no incentive in playing on. (He already retained his title plus a draw in that game will allow him to take a bigger share of the prize fund). |
|
| Jul-14-06 | | Hesam7: <alicefujimori> Win or draw in the last game did not affect the prize money Kasparov was going to receive. Also as early as game 19 Kasparov might have been confident that he was going to retain his title. After game 19 he had 3 whites in 5 games plus he might have realized that Karpov was not in his top form or was getting very tired towards the end of the match. |
|
| Jul-14-06 | | s4life: <The point is, the computer is a tool, but it has not **yet** reached the point of being virtually infallible, although I suspect that will happen within 5 years.> Did you not check the last two "Man vs Machine" matches? It doesn't need to be infallible to kick GM ass. Yoy said in 5 years ?? heheh, it will never be infallible unless the model of computation is changed... |
|
| Jul-14-06 | | RookFile: Well, that's what I mean by virtually infallible - it may not be perfect, but there won't be a human strong enough to tell the difference. |
|
| Jul-14-06 | | RookFile: And Alice: the great thing about written text is, you can quote it.
I spent the day talking about 1978 being unfair, huh? Quote it! No, I was careful to qualify what I was talking about along the way, as the following: <In case you still don't understand, consider the following qualifier that I put on this, when I went down this road:When Korchnoi played Karpov in 1981....>
|
|
| Jul-14-06 | | alicefujimori: <RookFile>I wasn't the only one in that discussion. <danielpi>, <ughaibu> and some others were there too. So no matter how hard you tried to deny it you're not going to change anything. You've clearly claimed that Korchnoi played the 1978 match with a gun pointed at his son's head. So you're going to tell everyone now that you haven't said that? It's ok, <RookFile>. I don't expect a person who believe in Fischer's crap to be rational and clear headed. |
|
| Jul-14-06 | | RookFile: Isn't Alice great? She never lets the facts, nor the written words get in her way. Above, I've produced the qualifier that I put on the whole discussion, <When Korchnoi played Karpov in 1981....>. Alice can't produce any quote, any text that in any way shape or form suggests that we were talking about Korchnoi playing the 1978 match under duress.
It's just dumb, of course I was talking about 1981, when Korchnoi's son is still in jail. So, when you have no evidence, you ask for the help of a couple of other people. Who knows? Maybe they'll testify that I'm Bobby Fischer or something. In lieu of facts, fantasy world is most entertaining. |
|
| Jul-15-06 | | MrMelad: <Hesam7: Win or draw in the last game did not affect the prize money Kasparov was going to receive. > He could of done that out of respect and fatigue, you know. |
|
| Jul-15-06 | | Hesam7: <MrMelad> that was my response to an earlier post by <alicefujimori>. |
|
| Jul-21-06 | | s4life: <Rookfile: but Kasparov just showed bad judgment and took a draw in a game he probably would have won> You still haven't showed lines... you know the ones you promised you were gonna work on. |
|
| Dec-03-06 | | lopezexchange: In the final position Black has an easy and clear win:
40.Qb2,Qa7; 41.Qa2,Qa4; 42.Qxa4,Nxa4; 43.Bb2,Rb1; 44.Rc2,Rb8; 45.Bc1,R8b3; 46.Ra2,Rxf3 Here White can safely resign. Possible mop up continuation: 47.Rc8+,Kf7; 48.Rxa4,Rb7; 49.Bxf4,exf4; 50.Kg2,Rg3+; 51.Kf1,Nxg4 and no decent resistance can be put up here. Spassky was right: Kasparov had an easy win here. |
|
| Sep-19-08 | | SetNoEscapeOn: In the google video, there's moment of sheer goofiness as Kasparov explains that after move 35, The knight on f6 is the b8 knight and the knight on e4 is the g8 knight. He's completely giddy. |
|
| Jun-08-09 | | talisman: Late coming to this game but Draw??!?.
was there time trouble here? |
|
| Jul-01-09 | | Knight13: <Spassky was right: Kasparov had an easy win here.> See, Spassky still got his head in the game. |
|
| Aug-30-09 | | Hesam7: <RookFile: Regarding this:
<40 Qb2 Qxb2 41 Bxb2 Rb1 42 Rg1 Nce4 43 Rb6 Ng3+ 44 Rxg3 Bxg3 45 Kg2 Bf4 46 Be2 e4 47 Rb5 Rf7 48 c5 dxc5 49 Nc3 Re1 50 Kf2 Rh1 51 Rxc5 (eval -0.16) > Botvinnik said: "Distrust long analysis".
It would not surprise me at all to find out that black's first move (Qxb2) is a mistake.> I think Larsen said something to the same effect. Anyways recently I came along a 3 hour long video of the second half of the match where Karpov and Kasparov themselves commented on the games and so I decided to look at the final position of this game some 4 years after I posted the above engine analysis. In the video Kasparov says after 40.Qb2 he is winning but the only move that wins is 40...Qa8. He adds that he offered a draw because he did not want an adjournment and that this was a crime against chess for which he was punished in game 21 by having a very difficult adjourned position. After Kasparov's recommendation: 40.Qb2 Qa8 White has 41.Rxc5 dxc5 42.Bxe5: 
click for larger viewAnd here my engine can't find anything better than: 42...Qe8 43.Bxf4 gxf4 44.Qxc1 Qe1+ 45.Kh2 Qh4+ 46.Kg1 Qe1+ 47.Kh2 @ depth 22/76. This line might be an argument for playing 40...Qa7 instead of 40...Qa8. But then in the video Kasparov claims that 40...Qa8 is <the only winning move> so he might have had something in mind against 40...Qa7. |
|
| Aug-30-09 | | Hesam7: <clocked: <tamar> I think Black does have a nice advantage. Consider: 40.Qb2 Qa7 41.Qa2 Qa4 42.Qxa4 Nxa4 and
43.Bb4 e4! 44.Be2 Rb1 45.Bxd6 Bxd6 46.Rxd6 Nc3
43.Bb2 Rb1 44.Ra6 e4! 45.Bxf6 exf3 46.Rg1 Nc5 47.Ra1 Rxa1 48.Bxa1 Ne4 and the rook must go > This analysis is correct. After the forced 40.Qb2 Qa7 41.Qa2 Qa4 42.Qxa4 Nxa4 the c3 bishop is under attack and has to move: 
click for larger viewThere are only 4 possibilities and my engine gives the following lines @ depth 20: <43.Bb2 Rb1 44.Ra6 e4 45.Bxf6 exf3 46.Rg1 Nc5 47.Ra1 Rxa1 48.Bxa1 Ne4 49.Re1 f2 50.Rf1 Ng3+ 51.Kg2 Rb8 52.Bb2 Nxf1 53.Kxf1 Bg3 54.Bd4 Rb1 [-1.53]43.Bb4 e4 44.Be2 Rb1 45.Bxd6 Bxd6 46.Rxd6 Nc3 47.Rb6 Rc1 48.Kh2 Nxd1 49.Bxd1 Rxd1 50.Re6 Rd4 51.Rc6 e3 52.Kh3 Kg7 53.Rc5 Rf7 54.Rc8 [-2.13] 43.Bd2 Bxd2 44.Rxd2 e4 45.Kg2 exf3+ 46.Kxf3 Nc3 47.Ne3 Nd7 48.Kg2 Ne5 49.Rb6 Ra8 50.Rxd6 Ne4 51.Re6 Nxd2 52.Rxe5 Nxc4 53.Re6 Nxe3+ 54.Rxe3 Rd8 55.Rd3 [-3.22] 43.Ba5 e4 44.Be2 Ra8 45.Bb4 Nb2 46.Bxd6 Nxd1 47.Rg1 Bxd6 48.Rxd6 Nxg4 49.Bxg4 Nf2+ 50.Kg2 Rc2 51.Rc1 Rd2 52.Be2 Nd3 53.Rb1 Rxe2+ 54.Kh1 Rc2 55.Rxh6 Rxc4 [-3.33]> I think this confirms that Black was indeed winning when the draw was agreed. |
|
| Oct-09-09 | | The Rocket: "In the google video, there's moment of sheer goofiness as Kasparov explains that after move 35, The knight on f6 is the b8 knight and the knight on e4 is the g8 knight. He's completely giddy." lol |
|
| Aug-21-11 | | Capabal: Spassky also commented on this game in an interview with Kingpin in 1997 for his 60th birthday, published in 1998. it's a very interesting interview, and he has a good sense of humor. He doesn't seem to like either of the two Ks too much. http://www.kingpinchess.net/?p=16
< [...] One thing is, however, clear for me: if they had really played honestly 150 games in the five title-matches, both of them would have been in a mental asylum. Undoubtedly there was some kind of conspiracy between the two champions, probably starting with their third match. At least that was my impression when I was working as commentator of their match in Lyon in 1990. I shall never forget the 19th game when Kasparov proposed a draw in an absolutely winning position while Karpov was in awful time trouble. I was in a state of shock, absolutely unable to explain to the chess fans what had happened in this game. Now in retrospect I understand that mysterious, powerful and super-wealthy forces were standing behind their backs, and the two guys could have risked their lives had they disobeyed… I remember, for example, that after I had won against Petrosyan in 1969, it took me one year to return back to normal. I was completely exhausted after 23 games, but Karpov and Kasparov played five long matches! If they had really invested all their forces in all the games of all the matches, both would have been mentally sick for years. There was certainly some conspiracy between the players, they won a nice sum of money and kept their health in good shape.> |
|
Dec-25-11
 | | Domdaniel: "A unique game for Karpov - after 20 moves he'd moved all his pawns. He never did it [before] ..." Kasparov's video commentary: http://youtu.be/_t1X-ckd2S8 |
|
| Jul-28-13 | | Everett: <Capabal: Spassky also commented on this game in an interview with Kingpin in 1997 for his 60th birthday, published in 1998. it's a very interesting interview, and he has a good sense of humor. He doesn't seem to like either of the two Ks too much.> Spassky spoke of exhaustion after defeating Byrne in the Candidates, forget which year, and after months of recovery time he said he was not ready for the next match. It seems, from what Spassky says, that it is his nerves and his reservoir of energy that gets depleted when he plays intensely. Before we accuse Karpov and Kasparov of a conspiracy, we should look at the limitation toward objectivity that Spassky may have had in this regard. |
|
| Jul-28-13 | | SpaceRunner: Karpov and (a young)Kasparov are truly delightfull to watch and learn from...
Especially do I think much better of Karpov after watching several videos and tutorials...
This video is truly the best Chess-production ever... The quality the first 10 minutes could be better!
Kasparov-Karpov Lyon 1990
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVcp... |
|
| Sep-27-18 | | Boomie: <Everett: Before we accuse Karpov and Kasparov of a conspiracy, we should look at the limitation toward objectivity that Spassky may have had in this regard.> We need to look more closely at what else influenced Spassky's opinion. He said <I shall never forget the 19th game when Kasparov proposed a draw in an absolutely winning position while Karpov was in awful time trouble. I was in a state of shock, absolutely unable to explain to the chess fans what had happened in this game.> We should verify first that black was winning in the final position. Then we need to find out if Karpov was indeed in time trouble. After that we should be in a better position to make a judgement. Let's examine the work already done on this thread. More testimony helps clarify the issue.
More Spassky quotes:
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1990 (kibitz #4) Some aren't convinced of collusion.
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1990 (kibitz #5) <clocked> is a fine analyst. Karpov vs Kasparov, 1990 (kibitz #8) The complexity of the position may have scared Kasparov into accepting a draw: Karpov vs Kasparov, 1990 (kibitz #22) An early swing showing black winning:
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1990 (kibitz #99) More support for Spassky's claim:
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1990 (kibitz #104) Now almost 10 years after this last post, more powerful engines agree with Spassky's assessment: Stockfish 8 64: 40. Qb2 Qa7 41. Qa2 Qa4 42. Qxa4 Nxa4 43. Bb2 Rb1 44. Ra6 e4 45. Bxf6 exf3 46. Rg1 Nc5 47. Ra1 Rxa1 48. Bxa1 Ra8 (-3.53/35 Stockfish 8 64) 
click for larger viewWith the rook coming to a2 and the knight to e4, black does have a winning edge here. Add to this the fact that Karpov's flag was teetering and he had a crucial move remaining before adjournment. For black to offer or accept a draw here makes no sense at all. To masters of Spassky's quality, this is obvious. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
